What would be the best options to take in the case of the inmates at Guantanamo bay prison?
Obviously there will be some that will face US justice through their courts system but how will others be dealt with and how should they be dealt with.
I believe the ones released to the UK were not charged with any offences and are free to do as they please, will this happen in the US do you think?
You do realise that the ones released to the UK who were not charged with any offences were not charged because there was no evidence against them?
They were not charged because they couldn't prove anything and it would be time consuming and costly, the men had also served time so there would be no time to serve.
I still think the people should be returned to the countries where they were picked up.
Not being able to prove anything is the same as no evidence!
Why return them to the country the were picked up in? I suspect that so much time has passed that they had no further business there. Surely returning them to their home country is best especially after all the inconvenience they have suffered.
I suppose John that would depend why they were picked up in the first place. But as you say there is no evidence against them that's why they were kept in prison for so long.
I do believe it was said at the time that prosecutions wouldn't be in the public interest.
As you said, they had a genuine reason for being there them why should they mind being returned there.
As I recall they were realised within an hour of returning to the UK as there was no evidence of any terrorist involvement, not because prosecution would not be in the public interest.
So, return them to the country in which they were picked up in, destitute and without the means of returning home - your humanity and humility humbles me.
Well it's obvious John that the US have some evidence as they intent putting some through their justice system. I was just wondering why they were in these countries with no obvious reason, but I suppose your right if you can't prove why they were there they must be innocent....
I do believe there are still a few British subjects in prison there but they are probably innocent too.
I wonder if all the British Muslim freedom fighters killing British solders are innocent as well?
So what are you saying?
Because some are guilty, all are guilty?
And what is no obvious reason? Isn't business an obvious reason, or religious purposes an obvious reason?
And yes, if you can't prove that they were there for illegal purposes then they are innocent.
I see where you are coming from John and i agree with what you say, but just because there is no evidence doesn't mean that they were there pursuing legal business.
We know that some people are involved in crime but there is not enough evidence to convict, it doesn't mean they don't do what we believe they do.
Have you never thought the government didn't prosecute to protect sources that may still be working in these countries, or maybe you don't believe we have those sources because we have no evidence of them.
What proof do we have that you aren't an agent provoateur employed by the French government to foment unrest amongst their enemies, the Americans?
I don't like snails in garlic butter.
Will that do John?
Not really. Anybody can say that they don't like snails in garlic butter.
Not people that like snails in garlic butter, surely you are not suggesting they would lie about it John?
But you're quite happy to suggest that people in Guantanamo are lying about their none involvement!
Exactly. And you think they are all goody two shoes................
Nope, but when our right wing security forces can find no evidence that they have committed (or even thought of committing) a crime, then I think it fairly safe to say that they haven't.
Your not one of those who believe the security services encourage dissident behaviour are you?
No John but i am also not that naive that i would think that those who travel to war zones for no reason are just there to look at the scenery.
I suppose all those British Muslims off to Syria are there to see the sights too.
Not for no reason, unless you discount religious reasons.
Oh i see they were all on religious pilgrimages, never thought of that.
What's in Syria for them to pilgrimage to then John?
As far as I'm aware none of the people held in Guantanamo had been to Syria.
Damascus, Homs, Hamah and Halab, Ummayyad Mosque and the grave of John the Baptist (whom Muslims consider a prophet) to name just a few.
Don't flaunt your ignorance. If you don't know at least look it up.
Why do i need to look it up with all the know it all's on here?
So you think they are going there for the pilgrimage to these sacred sites then Josak?
Knowledge is a virtue, ignorance is a vice, if you are going to judge an issue (as you already have) you should know the issue otherwise the conclusion will be false (as it is in this case).
To know if they were there on pilgrimages I would have to look at independent cases, they may have been there visiting family or friends, getting back to their homeland as a spiritual journey, making a pilgrimage or just seeing a fascinating and beautiful part of the world. Or it's possible they were there to train as terrorists, it's the least likely scenario and it's one that must be proved to have any validity. Innocent until proven guilty.
So you don't think there are any foreign fighters in Syria then Josak? Do you think there are no foreign fighters in Afghanistan either.
I suppose if you have an interest in something you will have desire to gain knowledge about that subject, as Syria is not on my list of favourite places i have little knowledge about its history but i suppose i can learn about it if i wish.
Ignorance is only that to those who profess to know everything.
Did I ever say it thought there were no foreign fighters in Syria? Go back. Read the comment really slowly. Reply to the actual comment not what you imagine I said. It's not that hard.
Any accusation to have any legal bearing has to be proven, if you cannot prove someone did something you cannot hold them, simple as that. It's the foundation of the justice system.
If you don't have an interest in something you shouldn't talk about it, you shouldn't profess to have an opinion about it if that opinion is based on absolute ignorance.
Ignorant of what? That there are foreign fighters in the countries that i mentioned or that you don't have to have a gun in your hand to be classed as a possible suspect. It would be very ignorant of someone to think there were no foreign fighters on their way to Syria or Afghanistan at this very moment. What evidence do you need anyway, if someone was looking through your front window would you consider he was there just to admire your wallpaper!
Now you don't even know what legal evidence is?
Well I think that may be the definition of ignorance.
This is how it works, to legally convict someone of something you HAVE to have proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty of a crime. Simple as that. Without that founding aspect of our justice system everything falls apart and we regress to Salem Witch trials type justice.
Ignorant of what? Basically ignorant of everything to do with this topic, ignorant of Islam, ignorant of Syria and ignorant of the law.
Is that why the Americans interned Japanese Americans because they had evidence against them then?
Nope it wasn't and that is why it goes down as one of the worst travesties in a history with a lot of terrible travesties.
Now you are supporting replicating a similar scenario.
No i support stopping the influx of foreign fighters into war zones.
I have to agree it was a travesty one amongst many that have happened.
Still cant think why people would be in a war zone without a reason though.
As we have already noted there are plenty of reasons to be in Syria.
What an absolutely crass statement!
You want me to believe that those who know nothing about a subject are not ignorant!
Well Josak could have educated me to the beauty of Syria and its culture rather than trying to demean me over my view about the reasons why young male (in the main) foreigners would be flocking to the country.
The cry of ignorant is used by the educated to demean those who have an opinion that doesn't match their own.
A view based only your absolute zero knowledge on the subject isn't worth anything and it's not my job to educate you, as I noted in my first comment, the info is freely available at your fingertips, your lack of any knowledge on the subject is down to laziness and unwillingness not a lack of opportunity to learn.
Would you place your inability to see why foreigners with no reason to be in a war zone as ignorance then or do you just deny they exist?
Josak has already given you plenty of reasons why a person might be in a war zone without participating in that war.
Or do you think people should abandon family ties?
Again, as we have covered again and again there are many reasons to be in Syria I have listed several. Are you going to keep bringing up a dead point?
But the reality is John that foreign fighters are going to Syria and Afghanistan and you still believe there is no evidence because no one has told you there is.
Show us the legal evidence. Where is it? If it is not demonstrable then it has no legal relevance on a case by case basis.
In the specific cases we are talking about, that is British citizens held in Guantanamo, realised back to the British authorities without being charged by the US and promptly realised by UK security forces because there was no evidence against them then yes, I do believe that there was no evidence against them.
They were not released by the British security forces they were released by the British government.but i get what you are saying.
Mind you what possible advantage would there be in prosecuting them anyway? POW's are never prosecuted by there own country are they?
If there is some evidence then they should be tried, however, if there is none, well, speaks for itself really. Or, are you in favour of incarcerating people without evidence, without trial?
I wonder if all the British Muslim freedom fighters killing British solders are innocent as well?
Absolutely not! If there is evidence that they have committed murder then they should be tried, and if found guilty imprisoned.
But that's the point isn't it? That there should be enough evidence before we try, or condemn?
See how that works? Fundamental principles!
Or, do you think differently?
GITMO is a shameful chapter in the timeline of this world and mainly the US. One day people will wake up and accept GITMO or what it is. No one deserves to be locked up without trial in detention. Te only reason these guys are there is because no other country has the b**ls to speak out against the US.
by Deforest 6 years ago
How come my president is prompter to believe takfiri dogs/criminals versus Assad? Any interests involved? Your opinion. I've noticed that not many people are concerned on the subject. Fear of a potential retaliation from the NSA?Satellites showed the ambassadors that the missiles were shot from the...
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
How do you feel about the detainee released from Gitmo returning to Mideast to fight for Al Qaeda?Would we be safer with him still in Guantanamo Bay? There have been a number of detainees who have returned to the battlefield to fight for enemies of U.S.
by SonQuioey10 6 years ago
President Obama is determined to close Guantanamo Bay. People were angry about it, tweeting he should've been closed it. I tweeted that the President isn't a king here, he can't decree Guantanamo Bay closed etc... He should be able make executive orders without votes but that's not our system....
by sandra rinck 11 years ago
Do you think it is a wise move for Obama to close down Guantan?I don't know much about GB but I do know that is where they put all the terrorist they catch, so I was just wondering what they plan to do with them?Where are they gonna go?
by Real Life Stories 9 years ago
Considering President Obama was elected on an anti-war mandate, has he been a disappointment?President Obama was elected in rebuttle to the aggressive war warmongering of the Bush administration. He was heavily in opposition to the very existence of Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre, advocated...
by Sharlee 2 months ago
Today Adam Schiff stood before our Senate and told a long ongoing story. A story that he could not prove. Yet he was allowed to go on and on telling his story. Schiff used all the drama he could muster. He even had the audacity to provide videos of witnesses that testified in the House...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|